Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling

"Bike" Defined In Every Dictionary Including A Google Search As A Motorcycle, But Wikipedia Redirects To Bicycle?

Hi,

I am a motorcycle (bike) enthusiast, which is a $120 billion global market, who would like Wikipedia to show some respect to the motorcycle industry and the definition of the term "bike" by redirecting people who search the term "bike" to the motorcycle page or asking Wikipedia to properly create an article for "bike" for motorcycle and bicycle enthusiasts alike. With all due respect, it is currently a slap to the face of the motorcycle industry redirecting the term "bike" searches by individuals to the "bicycle" article with just a hat note for the "motorcycle" article. A simple Google search of "define bike" or in any dictionary, will show that the term "bike" is commonly referred to and interchangeably used to describe a "motorcycle" and/or "bicycle".

In addition, for current affairs, Progressive Motorcycle Insurance is airing a television commercial where the motorcyclist refers to his bike as a bike:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC82qj30VAg

NOTICE: Between seconds 8 and 9 of this nationally televised 2017 TV commercial the gentleman states "..best BIKE I ever owned!" referencing the motorcycle he is riding, not a bicycle.

Currently, it is quite unfair to motorcycle enthusiasts and the motorcycle community to disrespect the nickname "bike" by going directly to "bicycle" because the term "bike" is used to describe a motorcycle just as much as it is described to be a bicycle. There really ought to be a separate article for "bike" since a bicycle and a motorcycle are not the same thing.

As a motorcycle enthusiast, I hope you can understand my frustration in searching the term "bike" and being redirected to "bicycle" with a minor hat note for motorcycle enthusiasts when every dictionary including a simple google search of "define bike" all define the term to be interchangeable between motorcycle and bicycle. The definition of a term is the most valid evidence an encyclopedia could have at its disposal for an article. And I want to believe Wikipedia is a trusted encyclopedia, but currently it is not doing justice towards the definition of the word "bike."

Thanks and I hope the Wikipedia volunteer team can rectify this issue. :)

With Warmest Regards,

Christopher2600:8805:4200:204:58FC:4084:C80D:278C (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Christopher. Your words above although well-considered will probably cause a little bit of controversy with the bicycle community on Wikipedia. It would probably be best to make this request where both communities can see it. Or at least to put on the bicycles project page (WikiProject Cycling, uh-oh) a note that the discussion is here. We generally have a policy of not changing things unless there is consensus to do so.

Also note that "we were there first" is likely to degenerate quickly. E.g. Bike Magazine is either about motorcycles or about mountain bikes. - Bri (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realise that bicycles and the term bike were in use before motorcycles were invented. See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bike Also if you are redirected to bicycle when you search bike there is a clear hatnote that points you to Bike (disambiguation) where motorcycle is listed. The fact is that the term is used for both modes of transport and no disrespect to motorcyclists is intended but bike meaning bicycle is older than bike meaning motorcycle, so I doubt you will ever get a consensus to reverse the current situation. BTW, just as one example of the older use of bike for bicycle, here is a Library of Congress search of their image archive for the term "bike" and there is not even 1 motorcycle to be seen in the results. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern:

If Wikipedia wants to be considered a factual encyclopedia, then there really should be a separate article for the term "BIKE" showing the interchangeability of the term with every dictionary showing a "BIKE" is just as much a motorcycle as it is a bicycle. Again, last night I was watching television and saw two more commercials showing the relevance of the term "BIKE" being a motorcycle not a bicycle in today's society. Here are all three TV commercials I have seen from Allstate and Progressive Insurance companies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ema5Qj0Qr9Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUOScQy9tTc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC82qj30VAg

If a motorcycle enthusiast searches the term "BIKE" on Wikipedia, it is unfactual for an encyclopedia to lead them to a bicycle article when it truthfully should lead them to an article that shows both motorcycles and bicycles.

Thanks and I hope the Wikipedia volunteer team can rectify this issue because it is quite disrespectful to the motorcycle community and we all want to truly believe Wikipedia is a truthful source for information of all terminology. :)

With Warmest Regards,

Christopher

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is also written for a reasonably educated audience, meaning they should be familiar with basic English words like bike and motorcycle. A different encyclopedia, Simple English Wikipedia is there for those with limited language ability. You should also realize that you could go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling and they would make exactly the same argument, except with all the words bike and motorcycle changing places. You're welcome to go to the bicycling project and see what they have to say. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Wikipedia does not need to be a dictionary to realize the term "BIKE" is the term used to describe motorcycles in current affairs (TV, Radio, Magazine, etc. commercial advertisements) per examples already provided to you. Why so much disrespect to the facts provided, versus fixing the issue. When a motorcycle enthusiast searches the term "BIKE", as proven in current and past affairs, and in every English dictionary, they should see an article showing motorcycles and bicycles? I'm saddened to see an encyclopedia disrespecting motorcycle enthusiasts without an article on "BIKE" ? Instead of all of this disrespectful excuses, please just follow the truth and facts of the matter. The truth and facts of the matter is that when someone searches the term "BIKE" they should see an article on how the term is used interchangeably for motorcycles and bicycles. I'm not saying Wikipedia is a dictionary, but I have shown you evidence of how the term is used to describe motorcycles in current affairs plus any and every dictionary.

With Warmest Regards,

Christopher -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.35.60 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling

Popular pages report

We - Community Tech - are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Motorcycling, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Motorcycle edit wars

I contribute to Wikipedia on a number of topics, but when I make a post on motorcycling (and nowhere else), I find that my edit is invariably reverted by another editor who is clearly stalking me. Any response I make on a Talk page then receives a hailstorm of invective and blocking threats. Try as I might to act in good faith and to observe Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, it becomes increasingly hard to stay civil. Of course, I could just pack up my bags and stop editing bike topics, but I feel I have something to offer and I don't see why I should be squeezed out. I am prepared both to take well-informed criticism on the chin and to comply with well-intentioned suggestions, but I don't like being "wiki-hounded". Any advice would be most welcome. Arrivisto (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I have numerous motorcycle articles on my watchlist is not evidence of following you around. Any revert you have incurred is simply because you made substantial claims with no source support so it appeared to be just WP:OR. When challenged to provide reliable source support, (OR) was confirmed by your inability to provide any sources and also shown reliable sources that contradict your claims. You have been informed that you may potentially be blocked for this in a effort to solely just have you change this behavior. You then usually become very uncivil when told you are not recognized as a expert and can not do this and have made numerous personal attacks consequently such as this[1].

Recently editor Arrivisto was refusing to allow WP:NPOV to the Yamaha TRX850 article. With his insistence that reliable sourced content not be included in the article that was not offering high praise and replaced it with a quote like one already on the article about the bike having a cult status here[2]. This behavior was brought to the attention of a admin and he replied here with this [3]. And he stated this I will tell you that removing sourced content, to replace it with content that speaks more favorably on a topic you seem to be partial about, is simply not acceptable and removing one for personal (?) reasons can lead to a block. Editor Arrivisto response was to state he rejected the admins conclusion and proceeded with a rant on how he was right and everyone else was wrong again with no source support but simple his own opinions here[4].

His claim he was not partial but that he just "means that I am well informed" as he was not told that we knew that he was selling these bikes online on ebay and he himself was not contributing to any of this information until it was shown we knew about this. Selling these motorcycles on ebay[5] and talking them up there ("The TRX is "the best-kept secret in motorcycling"!") with links to the Wiki article (See the Wikipedia page for more TRX information:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850) in a obvious ploy for financial gain would appear he is guilty of WP:COI. His response to this information was to make more personal attacks here[6] and let me hurry and sweep all this under the rug and delete the whole conversation off his talk page.

When I brought the conversation to the article talk page after his further insistence to exclude neutral content he proclaimed "No one but you is interested" and made further personal attacks. So would any one else like to chime in on this behavior? But I presume eventually it made need to go to a noticeboard but I am not looking to get him blocked, I simply wish for him to follow the rules the rest of use are beholden to. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Arrivisto: you might have noticed I'm not as active in this area as I used to be. It could be because I find interaction with the same person extremely unpleasant. Have decided to wait it out but if a formal action was initiated I'd probably throw in my two cents on the situation. This seems to go beyond what's covered in WP:DR. And by the way I think most admins would treat editing your talkpage immediately after being disinvited from doing just that, prima facie violation of WP:HARASS. - Bri (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing a reliable source is one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia.Orsoni (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As is Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Which means respecting a clearly stated injunction not to use one's talkpage. - Bri (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

On the TRX talkpage I have felt it necessary to post as follows: "It is important to understand that a talk page conversation is a sequence of posts made by editors. An editor may edit his own posts to repair a typo (and perhaps even the typos of another editor) but should do no more. It should be plain to all that it defeats the object and is misleading if, once a post has been answered by another editor, the first editor then retrospectively amends the content and meaning of the earlier post, as this gives the false impression that the second editor has responded to the amended post." It would be helpful if other editors would express their views on this matter. Arrivisto (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked for clarification and that is what was provided no meaning was changed. You also stated you were done with the conversation with this "but I feel that this matter has been done to death, and any more verbiage would be superfluous". So I find it hard to understand how this is a matter that needed to be brought here. So why are you shopping for what I presume to simply be for a proven bias editor to pile on. As you are ignoring all of your major violations brought to light here in favor of some trivial thing. What should have been a matter for here, would have been the content of that discussion, your unsupported claims that the Norton Commando 961, Triumph Thruxton were modern-day sportbikes, in your effort to prove that parallel-twins were still used for large displacement sportbikes.-72bikers (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I consider my last post post to be axiomatically clear, but let me explain further. A talk page post is a matter of record. If an editor makes a post but then thinks better of it, he/she may edit or delete it PROVIDED that the post has not been answered. (If a post has been deleted, it is not a good faith edit for another to "undelete" it). If a post has a simple typo, that may be corrected provided the meaning is not changed; but if the editor wishes to expand upon an earlier post that has received a response, then the appropriate action is a new post, and not an edit of the earlier post, which is tantamount to rewriting history. Arrivisto (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

LDR list is bogging down

I've requested an WP:Editnotice for List of long-distance motorcycle riders because of all the crufty autobio entries lately. You can review and comment here. ? Bri (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

V-Rod discontinuation

We could use better sourcing at Harley-Davidson VRSC. I added this more or less as a placeholder. Harley hasn't apparently made an official announcement, just left the model out of the line and various websites are speculating as to meaning; this leaves us in a bit of a unique position wrt reliable sourcing. ? Bri (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

RFC/discussion of article Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year

Hello, WikiProject Motorcycling. As a prominent contributor to Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia